Kokkuvõte:

The concept of “culture” is known to be extremely hard to define: while many have
tried, there is still little agreement on what is meant when this term is used. The usage of “culture” has ranged from referring to everything that is man-made to signifying clearly
bounded entities like national cultures, subcultures, etc. One particular example of this
usage is the notion of “Estonian culture” which is used in nearly every cultural political
document in Estonia. It is most importantly found in the preamble of the Estonian
constitution where the purpose of the state is to “guarantee the preservation of the
Estonian nation, language and culture through the ages” (note that in the Estonian
language there is a distinction between the adjective “Estonian” with a capital “E” that
refers to the state and with a small “e” that refers to the nation; the constitution uses the
word with a small “e”). There is, nevertheless, no clarity in what it is that the state has
to preserve.
Taking this problem as its point of departure, this Master’s thesis seeks to analyze the
usage of the notion of “Estonian culture” in the official cultural political discourse. For
that purpose, two conflicting theoretical approaches are drawn out. First, the so-called
essentialist cultural theory, exemplified by Johann Gottfried Herder, early
anthropologists and many contemporary theorists of democracy and multiculturalism, is
based on three central assumptions: (1) cultures are coherent and closed wholes,
(2) these wholes have certain continuity that results in cultures having some “authentic”
and unchanging cores, and (3) these cultural wholes are bounded up with particular
social groups. The second, discourse theoretical approach is based on post-structuralist theory (as exemplified mainly by Michel Foucault, Ernesto Laclau and Jacques Derrida) and the problematization of these assumptions, resulting in an understanding of cultures as discourses, that is, as open systems that are constantly changing and that require the use of power to fix and enclose them.
Following Ludwig Wittgenstein we know that the meaning of words comes from their
use. For that reason and in the light of this theoretical opposition, the central Estonian
cultural political documents were analyzed with the notion of “Estonian culture” in
mind to find out (1) how the concept of “culture” is defined on the national level and
(2) how the notion of “Estonian culture” acquires its boundaries and content. No
particular discourse analytical tool was used, but rather general post-structuralist
principles were kept in mind while reading the documents. In addition to official
documents, interviews were carried out with seven officials from different cultural
political institutions, concentrating on particular methods that work to enclose the
cultural field.
The analysis showed that Estonian cultural policy largely follows an essentialist
understanding of culture, defining culture as a clearly bounded and static way of life of
a particular group. Nevertheless, two other meanings were also attributed to the
concept: culture as a sphere of government and culture as a sphere of artistic activity
(i.e. professional culture). While the principle of coherence in the case of the latter ones
is politico-geographical, the one of the national culture is less clear.
To see whether such coherence exists in the Estonian national culture, several methods
of closure were analysed. First, cultural field may be bounded by using positive means,
that is, by naming and enumerating cultural elements and articulating these to be part of
the national culture. This method is exemplified by different lists (e.g. national
intangible cultural heritage list), archives and exhibitions. Second, cultural field may be
also delineated by using negative means, that is, finding and naming “others” (or, in
more severe cases, even “enemies”) who are different from “us”. This method is
exemplified by different “cultural minorities” that are found and marked within the
country, as well as by signifiers like “mass culture” and “modern culture”. Although these methods of closure that are based on different principles of selection can be used to make small decisions of belonging for different cultural elements, they fail to
draw clear cultural boundaries and fill the signifier “Estonian culture” with content.
Rather, its meaning stays open and deferred, thus leaving the central question – what is
the entity that the state has to preserve? – also unanswered. Therefore, there is no clear
principle of unity when it comes to the national culture, as even common language,
“nation” and some understanding of continuity and “authenticity” fail to serve as this
basis.
Because the signifier “Estonian culture” is so overcoded and unclear, but is still required
by the essentialist approach to culture, it can be seen to function as an empty signifier in
the national identity discourse. Despite its important place and frequent use in political
discourse, it signifies an empty place, an absent fullness, which is nevertheless
necessary. The “Estonian culture” in its essentialist guise is therefore a signifier that is
very much needed in identity politics, because it offers a seemingly objective grounding
for defining those who belong and those who do not. Therefore, problematizing the
essentialist understandings of culture also calls into question the naturalness of national identities.
The main point of tension that arose in the analysis is the distinction between the
“Estonian culture” referring to the state and the “Estonian culture” referring to the
nation. While the former incorporates all kinds of cultural activities that take place in
the borders of Estonia (i.e. irrespective of its language and other qualities), the latter
rests on an understanding of the existence of “authentic” origins that stem from “our”
ancestors. While the constitution and central cultural political documents emphasize the
importance of the national cultural whole, there are also some cases where strict
national cultural approach is problematic. For example, several programmes of regional
and minority cultures serve to show that the boundaries of the national culture are
indeed blurry, thereby problematizing the entire concept. The relative immunity from
nationalist discourse can also be seen in the case of professional culture.
These conceptual tensions can be partly explained by the history of the Estonian state
that is characterized by strong currents of national identity construction, as well as
particularly strong discourses and practices of “othering” in the 1990s (which tried to
establish clear continuity between the country that existed between 1918 and 1940, and
the one that gained independence in 1991). Nevertheless, the situation has changed
somewhat with the new century that saw the establishment of the first official
integration programme and renewed interest in so-called minority and regional cultures
within Estonia. Therefore, the long-term movement, which is dictated also by several
international conventions, seems to be toward understanding and supporting the
“Estonian culture” that is bounded by state borders.